Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al.

When a party files a petition for Inter Partes Review, the petition “must identify ‘each claim challenged,’ the grounds for the challenge, and the evidence supporting the challenge. § 312(a)(3).” SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018) (emphasis added). A patent owner has the right to respond to the petitioner’s arguments and evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8). Yet the Respondents filed Inter Partes Review petitions that presented no evidence (for Ground 1) and conclusory evidence (for Ground 2) on essential elements of their prima facie case, and then submitted extensive new evidence to support these grounds with their “replies.” THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Did the Patent and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board violate 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) when it allowed, and refused to strike, Respondents’ extensive new reply evidence, and 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) when it refused Petitioner’s request to submit responsive evidence?